Difference between revisions of "The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
<mekorot><multilink><a href="Josephus" data-aht="source">Josephus #1</a><a href="Josephus" data-aht="source">Antiquities of the Jews 2:15</a><a href="Josephus" data-aht="parshan">About Josephus</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorShemot13-17-18" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorShemot13-17-18" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SefornoShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Seforno</a><a href="SefornoShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Ovadyah Seforno" data-aht="parshan">About R. Ovadyah Seforno</a></multilink>, <a href="BinNun" data-aht="source">Yoel Bin-Nun</a></mekorot> | <mekorot><multilink><a href="Josephus" data-aht="source">Josephus #1</a><a href="Josephus" data-aht="source">Antiquities of the Jews 2:15</a><a href="Josephus" data-aht="parshan">About Josephus</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorShemot13-17-18" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorShemot13-17-18" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SefornoShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Seforno</a><a href="SefornoShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Ovadyah Seforno" data-aht="parshan">About R. Ovadyah Seforno</a></multilink>, <a href="BinNun" data-aht="source">Yoel Bin-Nun</a></mekorot> | ||
<point><b>"דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר יַם סוּף"</b> – This approach emphasizes, not the wilderness aspect of the chosen route ("דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר"), but that it led to Yam Suf ("‏יַם סוּף‏‏"‎).<fn>This is in contrast to the approach below, which focuses instead on the wilderness aspect of the chosen path.</fn>  The miracle of Yam Suf was the objective of Hashem's original plan, and thus the determining factor in His choice of route rather than being merely a consequence of it.</point> | <point><b>"דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר יַם סוּף"</b> – This approach emphasizes, not the wilderness aspect of the chosen route ("דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר"), but that it led to Yam Suf ("‏יַם סוּף‏‏"‎).<fn>This is in contrast to the approach below, which focuses instead on the wilderness aspect of the chosen path.</fn>  The miracle of Yam Suf was the objective of Hashem's original plan, and thus the determining factor in His choice of route rather than being merely a consequence of it.</point> | ||
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>Avoiding war with whom?</b><ul> |
− | + | <li><b>With Egypt </b>– According to both R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno, Hashem feared the Israelites' fearful response to an encounter with Egypt.  They differ, though, with regard to whether Hashem wanted to prevent a fight or ensure one:<b><br/></b></li> | |
− | <li><b>With Egypt </b>– According to both R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno, Hashem feared the Israelites' fearful response to an encounter with Egypt.  They differ, though, with | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Prevent war</b> – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, Hashem wanted to prevent a war on two fronts, from both the pursuing Egyptians and the Philistines. He, thus took them on a route which would lead instead to the Egyptians' drowning, thus sparing them the conflict.</li> | <li><b>Prevent war</b> – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, Hashem wanted to prevent a war on two fronts, from both the pursuing Egyptians and the Philistines. He, thus took them on a route which would lead instead to the Egyptians' drowning, thus sparing them the conflict.</li> | ||
<li><b>Ensure war</b> – Seforno, in contrast, suggests that Hashem feared that the nation would panic at the site of the Egyptians and flee rather than fight.  Hashem, thus, took them on a path which guaranteed that they knew of the Egyptians only at the last moment when flight was no longer an option,<fn>See below for elaboration.</fn> forcing a confrontation which would lead the Egyptians to drown in Yam Suf.</li> | <li><b>Ensure war</b> – Seforno, in contrast, suggests that Hashem feared that the nation would panic at the site of the Egyptians and flee rather than fight.  Hashem, thus, took them on a path which guaranteed that they knew of the Egyptians only at the last moment when flight was no longer an option,<fn>See below for elaboration.</fn> forcing a confrontation which would lead the Egyptians to drown in Yam Suf.</li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
− | <li><b> Future wars</b> – Y. Bin-Nun asserts instead that the concern related to any future wars which might lead the nation to return to Egypt for protection.  Hashem wanted to ensure a total defeat which would free the | + | <li><b> Future wars</b> – Y. Bin-Nun asserts instead that the concern related to any future wars which might lead the nation to return to Egypt for protection.  Hashem wanted to ensure a total defeat which would free the Israelites from the mentality of dependence on their former masters.<fn>See Y. Barzilai, <a href="http://lib.cet.ac.il/pages/item.asp?item=11733">"וימרו על ים בים סוף - התכנית שלא התממשה"</a>  in על דרך האבות (Alon Shevut: 2001): 297-315, who agrees with Y. Bin-Nun's general approach but questions why the nation continuously asks to return to Egypt if their dependence was severed after the miracle.  He therefore suggests that Hashem had originally planned that the people themselves would defeat Paroh at Yam Suf.  Only their own victory would give them the necessary courage to turn their backs on Egypt in the future.  The nation, though, was not up to the task and in the end Hashem wrought the miracle instead, which saved the people but did not accomplish the primary goal of achieving complete independence.</fn></li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
+ | <point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים" – To where?</b> Most of these commentators assume that Hashem is speaking of the route which would lead to the land of Israel.  Seforno, in contrast, claims that Hashem is referring to the path that would lead to Yam Suf.<fn>In this, he differs from virtually all other exegetes.</fn>  He assumes that both the Philistine Route and the Wilderness Route led to Yam Suf<fn>The geography of the region, though, makes Seforno's approach difficult, as it is hard to see how the Philistine Route could be on the way to Yam Suf.  The locations of both the Philistine Route and Yam Suf are the subjects of debate.</fn> since that was always the intended goal. The only question was which route to prefer.</point> | ||
<point><b>How is the Wilderness Route a solution?</b><ul> | <point><b>How is the Wilderness Route a solution?</b><ul> | ||
<li><b>Presence of sea</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor maintains that only on the Wilderness Route was there a sea in which Hashem could drown the Egyptians. Although God could have ensured a victory even in a land battle, the miracle of the splitting of the sea would be greater.<fn>As above, he also points out that on the Philistine Route the Philistines would have joined the battle forcing a war on two fronts.</fn></li> | <li><b>Presence of sea</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor maintains that only on the Wilderness Route was there a sea in which Hashem could drown the Egyptians. Although God could have ensured a victory even in a land battle, the miracle of the splitting of the sea would be greater.<fn>As above, he also points out that on the Philistine Route the Philistines would have joined the battle forcing a war on two fronts.</fn></li> | ||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
<point><b>Did Paroh think the nation was to return?</b> This approach assumes that Paroh was under the assumption that the nation would return after their "three day holiday", leading him to chase after the nation when they did not.  It is possible that the whole ruse was in fact intended to guarantee the pursuit and subsequent drowning.  For elaboration of this possibility, see <a href="A_Three_Day_Journey/2" data-aht="page">A Three Day Journey</a>.</point> | <point><b>Did Paroh think the nation was to return?</b> This approach assumes that Paroh was under the assumption that the nation would return after their "three day holiday", leading him to chase after the nation when they did not.  It is possible that the whole ruse was in fact intended to guarantee the pursuit and subsequent drowning.  For elaboration of this possibility, see <a href="A_Three_Day_Journey/2" data-aht="page">A Three Day Journey</a>.</point> | ||
<point><b>"וַחֲמֻשִׁים"</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor understands the verse to refer to food provisions. If so, one might say that the choice to travel through the wilderness necessitated a supply of food, and that is why the fact is mentioned here. Seforno, in contrast, understands it to refer to military arms and suggests that the verse is highlighting that despite being armed, the nation lacked the courage to fight their masters.</point> | <point><b>"וַחֲמֻשִׁים"</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor understands the verse to refer to food provisions. If so, one might say that the choice to travel through the wilderness necessitated a supply of food, and that is why the fact is mentioned here. Seforno, in contrast, understands it to refer to military arms and suggests that the verse is highlighting that despite being armed, the nation lacked the courage to fight their masters.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>What about Sinai?</b> Seforno asserts that Mt. Sinai was always meant to be the second stop; first, though,Hashem wanted to drown the Egyptians.</point> | + | <point><b>What about Sinai?</b> Seforno asserts that Mt. Sinai was always meant to be the second stop; first, though, Hashem wanted to drown the Egyptians.</point> |
<point><b>Biblical parallels</b> – Seforno compares Hashem's plan here to the words of Devorah to Barak in Shofetim 4, "וּמָשַׁכְתִּי אֵלֶיךָ אֶל נַחַל קִישׁוֹן אֶת סִיסְרָא".  There, too, Hashem drew an enemy to follow Israel to a certain site with intent to defeat him there.</point> | <point><b>Biblical parallels</b> – Seforno compares Hashem's plan here to the words of Devorah to Barak in Shofetim 4, "וּמָשַׁכְתִּי אֵלֶיךָ אֶל נַחַל קִישׁוֹן אֶת סִיסְרָא".  There, too, Hashem drew an enemy to follow Israel to a certain site with intent to defeat him there.</point> | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
<point><b>Where is the Philistine Route?</b> Most of these commentators do not address the issue but many readers assume that it refers to the route that leads northeast out of Egypt, traversing the Philistine cities of Ashkelon and Ashdod, on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea (also known as דרך הים). At the time of the Exodus, though, the Philistines who later live in this area had not yet arrived,<fn>The route was instead filled with Egyptian garrisons who used the path on their campaigns to the North.  Cassuto suggests that as such, this route was not considered at all, leaving Hashem to choose between the shorter Philistine (Negev) Route and the more roundabout Wilderness Route.<br/>See, below, though that some modern scholars suggest that the verse really is referring to the coastal route (דרך הים) and simply explaining that Hashem rejected it specifically due to the Egyptians stationed there.</fn> leading Cassuto to asserts that the verse instead refers to a path that leads from Egypt to Israel via the Negev, home to the Philistines of Avraham's time.<fn>This is the later entry point of the Spies.</fn></point> | <point><b>Where is the Philistine Route?</b> Most of these commentators do not address the issue but many readers assume that it refers to the route that leads northeast out of Egypt, traversing the Philistine cities of Ashkelon and Ashdod, on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea (also known as דרך הים). At the time of the Exodus, though, the Philistines who later live in this area had not yet arrived,<fn>The route was instead filled with Egyptian garrisons who used the path on their campaigns to the North.  Cassuto suggests that as such, this route was not considered at all, leaving Hashem to choose between the shorter Philistine (Negev) Route and the more roundabout Wilderness Route.<br/>See, below, though that some modern scholars suggest that the verse really is referring to the coastal route (דרך הים) and simply explaining that Hashem rejected it specifically due to the Egyptians stationed there.</fn> leading Cassuto to asserts that the verse instead refers to a path that leads from Egypt to Israel via the Negev, home to the Philistines of Avraham's time.<fn>This is the later entry point of the Spies.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>"כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to what?</b> According to this approach, the problematic issue is the proximity of the route to Canaan. The shortness of the route would mean that the people would arrive in Canaan and be forced to begin the wars of conquest before they were physically and mentally prepared to fight.</point> | <point><b>"כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to what?</b> According to this approach, the problematic issue is the proximity of the route to Canaan. The shortness of the route would mean that the people would arrive in Canaan and be forced to begin the wars of conquest before they were physically and mentally prepared to fight.</point> | ||
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>Avoiding war with whom?</b> The war to be avoided was the battle of conquest in Canaan.</point> |
<point><b>Double "כִּי"</b> – According to these commentators, both appearances of the word mean because, and the two reasons given work together. Though one might have thought that a quick route would be advantageous, in this case it itself is the problem. If the nation was forced to wage war against the Canaanites so soon after being freed, when they were still not ready for battle, they would inevitably choose to return to Egypt and servitude.</point> | <point><b>Double "כִּי"</b> – According to these commentators, both appearances of the word mean because, and the two reasons given work together. Though one might have thought that a quick route would be advantageous, in this case it itself is the problem. If the nation was forced to wage war against the Canaanites so soon after being freed, when they were still not ready for battle, they would inevitably choose to return to Egypt and servitude.</point> | ||
<point><b>How is the Wilderness Route a solution?</b><ul> | <point><b>How is the Wilderness Route a solution?</b><ul> | ||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
<p>The choice of the Wilderness Route was a response to the dangers lurking on the Philistine Route. Hashem worried that the wars the nation would encounter en route would frighten them into returning to Egypt.</p> | <p>The choice of the Wilderness Route was a response to the dangers lurking on the Philistine Route. Hashem worried that the wars the nation would encounter en route would frighten them into returning to Egypt.</p> | ||
<mekorot><multilink><a href="Philo" data-aht="source">Philo #1</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="source">On the Life of Moses XXIX: 163-166</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="parshan">About Philo</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="Josephus" data-aht="source">Josephus #2</a><a href="Josephus" data-aht="source">Antiquities of the Jews 2:15</a><a href="Josephus" data-aht="parshan">About Josephus</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="MekhiltaVayehi" data-aht="source">Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a><a href="MekhiltaVayehi" data-aht="source">Beshalach Vayehi</a><a href="Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael" data-aht="parshan">About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a></multilink>,<fn>The Midrash offers many possible reads of the verses, including some of the approaches below.</fn> <multilink><a href="TargumPsJShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Targum Pseudo-Jonathan</a><a href="TargumPsJShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="Targum Pseudo-Jonathan" data-aht="parshan">About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ShemotRabbah20-11" data-aht="source">Shemot Rabbah #1</a><a href="ShemotRabbah20-11" data-aht="source">20:11-16</a><a href="Shemot Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Shemot Rabbah</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RashiShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong13-17" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot Long Commentary 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ChizkuniShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RambanShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink></mekorot> | <mekorot><multilink><a href="Philo" data-aht="source">Philo #1</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="source">On the Life of Moses XXIX: 163-166</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="parshan">About Philo</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="Josephus" data-aht="source">Josephus #2</a><a href="Josephus" data-aht="source">Antiquities of the Jews 2:15</a><a href="Josephus" data-aht="parshan">About Josephus</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="MekhiltaVayehi" data-aht="source">Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a><a href="MekhiltaVayehi" data-aht="source">Beshalach Vayehi</a><a href="Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael" data-aht="parshan">About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a></multilink>,<fn>The Midrash offers many possible reads of the verses, including some of the approaches below.</fn> <multilink><a href="TargumPsJShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Targum Pseudo-Jonathan</a><a href="TargumPsJShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="Targum Pseudo-Jonathan" data-aht="parshan">About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ShemotRabbah20-11" data-aht="source">Shemot Rabbah #1</a><a href="ShemotRabbah20-11" data-aht="source">20:11-16</a><a href="Shemot Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Shemot Rabbah</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RashiShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong13-17" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot Long Commentary 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ChizkuniShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RambanShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink></mekorot> | ||
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>Avoiding war with whom?</b> Commentators divide regarding the enemy that needed to be avoided: |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Philistines</b> – According to many of these commentators, the Philistines presently living on the route itself were the threat.<fn>Ramban asserts that the Philistines would not want outsiders trespassing their land, and as such would fight to prevent them from doing so.  <multilink><a href="RCPaltielShemot13-17" data-aht="source">R. Chaim Paltiel</a><a href="RCPaltielShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Chaim Paltiel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chaim Paltiel</a></multilink>, instead, proposes that the Egyptian and Philistines were related (see <a href="Bereshit10-13-14" data-aht="source">Bereshit 10:13-14</a>), making them more likely to fight the fleeing nation.</fn></li> | <li><b>Philistines</b> – According to many of these commentators, the Philistines presently living on the route itself were the threat.<fn>Ramban asserts that the Philistines would not want outsiders trespassing their land, and as such would fight to prevent them from doing so.  <multilink><a href="RCPaltielShemot13-17" data-aht="source">R. Chaim Paltiel</a><a href="RCPaltielShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Chaim Paltiel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chaim Paltiel</a></multilink>, instead, proposes that the Egyptian and Philistines were related (see <a href="Bereshit10-13-14" data-aht="source">Bereshit 10:13-14</a>), making them more likely to fight the fleeing nation.</fn></li> |
Version as of 23:28, 29 January 2015
The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Some of the most formative events in the history of the Children of Israel occurred on the Wilderness Route, and it is difficult to imagine how history would look without them. However, some of these sublime benefits are more obvious only in retrospect, while the text in explaining the choice of route emphasizes the more mundane dangers to the nation at that particular moment in time. Commentators thus struggle with how to reconcile this relationship, and their positions depend in great measure on whether or not the Egyptians' ultimate drowning was part of a Divine master-plan which required Paroh to be baited into chasing after the Israelites.
Seforno focuses exclusively on the immediate objective of reaching "יַם סוּף", the Mekhilta and many others stress the long range goals of traveling "דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר", Rashi and others adopt the simple reading of the text that there is no hidden motive and the purpose is merely to avoid the worse alternative of "דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים", while the Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel attempt to synthesize various approaches.
Below is the spectrum of approaches in defining Hashem's primary objective in leading the Israelites by way of the Wilderness Route:
Inducing the Egyptians' Drowning
The choice of route was aimed at ensuring the drowning of the Egyptians in Yam Suf, thereby displaying Hashem's might and/or ridding the Israelites of their dependence on Egypt.
- With Egypt – According to both R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno, Hashem feared the Israelites' fearful response to an encounter with Egypt. They differ, though, with regard to whether Hashem wanted to prevent a fight or ensure one:
- Prevent war – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, Hashem wanted to prevent a war on two fronts, from both the pursuing Egyptians and the Philistines. He, thus took them on a route which would lead instead to the Egyptians' drowning, thus sparing them the conflict.
- Ensure war – Seforno, in contrast, suggests that Hashem feared that the nation would panic at the site of the Egyptians and flee rather than fight. Hashem, thus, took them on a path which guaranteed that they knew of the Egyptians only at the last moment when flight was no longer an option,2 forcing a confrontation which would lead the Egyptians to drown in Yam Suf.
- Future wars – Y. Bin-Nun asserts instead that the concern related to any future wars which might lead the nation to return to Egypt for protection. Hashem wanted to ensure a total defeat which would free the Israelites from the mentality of dependence on their former masters.3
- Presence of sea – R"Y Bekhor Shor maintains that only on the Wilderness Route was there a sea in which Hashem could drown the Egyptians. Although God could have ensured a victory even in a land battle, the miracle of the splitting of the sea would be greater.6
- Lack of spies – Seforno, in contrast, believes that both routes would have ultimately led to Yam Suf,7 but the Wilderness Route was chosen since it was empty of spies and informers. As such, the Israelites would not be aware of the chasing Egyptians until they were already upon them, leaving them no choice of retreat. Hashem did not want to avoid a confrontation, but rather to ensure one, thus accomplishing His primary purpose, the drowning of the Egyptians.
- Different meanings – R"Y Bekhor Shor and Y. Bin-Nun understand the first "כִּי" to mean "that"8 and the second to mean "because". The Philistine route, which was shorter, was nevertheless rejected due to fear of the Israelite response to war.
- Identical meaning – According to Seforno both appearances of the word mean "because", and the two phrases together constitute the full dual concern.9
Facilitating National Growth
The Wilderness Route was not just the default alternative to a rejected route, but rather had value in its own right, as it offered the nation vital opportunities that the Philistine Route could not. This approach subdivides regarding what the route had to offer:
Physical and Mental Fortitude
The route afforded the nation both the time and environment needed to lose their slave mentality and gain the confidence and independence essential to conquer and rule Canaan.
- Growth through trials – Rambam emphasizes how the scarcity and hardships of wilderness life would instill courage and strength.15 R. Hirsch adds that the challenges encountered would teach them to trust in Hashem, which, in turn, would give them the self-confidence needed to fight. Shadal further asserts that the time in the wilderness provided time to learn the skills necessary for self rule.
- New generation – Rambam proposes that the forty years in the wilderness meant that it was a new generation that had never been enslaved which entered the land.16 This generation was not encumbered by a slave mentality, and was thus more capable of dealing with the challenges of conquest and government.17
- Miracles as morale booster – Malbim maintains that the splitting of the sea and other miracles of the wilderness would both instill fear in the Canaanites18 and boost the belief, and hence the courage, of the Israelites enabling a victory over their enemies.
- Stalling for the Canaanites – Malbim19 adds that the extra time afforded by the Wilderness Route ensured that the sins of the Emorites would be complete and they would be deserving of conquest by the time the nation arrived in the land.20
Spiritual Development
The trek through the wilderness enabled the nation to receive the Torah at Mt. Sinai and/or witness many other miracles, thereby deepening their belief in and religious connection to Hashem and His ways.
- Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael and Shadal explain that once they arrived they would disperse to their own inheritances and work, losing the opportunity to learn Torah and be guided spiritually by Moshe.
- Meshekh Chokhmah maintains that God feared the influence the idolatrous Canaanites would have on such a fledgling nation.
- Netziv stresses that the first reason given (proximity) was the primary one. He points out that as the people did desire to return to Egypt when facing war even on the longer path, this could not have been a major concern and goes as far as to suggest that God just said this because the nation would not have understood the real fear of assimilation.23
- Toledot Yitzchak, R. Hirsch, and Malbim, though, maintain that the reasons work together. Without the benefit of a long route in which to grow spiritually, the nation would lack the trust in God needed to fight wars and win.
Avoiding the Dangers of the Philistine Route
The choice of the Wilderness Route was a response to the dangers lurking on the Philistine Route. Hashem worried that the wars the nation would encounter en route would frighten them into returning to Egypt.
- Philistines – According to many of these commentators, the Philistines presently living on the route itself were the threat.28
- Past wars – Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and the first opinion in Shemot Rabbah assert that the fear related not to the consequences of present battles, but to the remnants of past wars. Thirty years earlier members of the tribe of Ephraim attempted to make their way to Israel but fell at the hand of the Philistines. Hashem did not want the Israelites to see their fallen bodies, panic, and then return to Egypt.
- Egyptians – According to modern scholars,29 the Philistine Route might be identified with what is known in Egyptian texts as the "Wall of Horus".30 At the time of the Exodus, it was under Egyptian control and heavily fortified with Egyptian sentries and garrisons. Traveling via such a route would inevitably lead to conflict with the Egyptians, and Israelite terror of their hated masters would lead to a quick surrender and return to servitude.31
- Because – Rashi and Ibn Ezra imply that it, too, means "because." Hashem is, thus, giving two related reasons why to avert the Philistine route. Fear of war was significant specifically because the route was so close to Egypt. The proximity made it more likely for the nation to return to Egypt upon encountering war.
- Even though or that – Chizkuni maintains that the first "כִּי" means "even though", while Ramban proposes that it means "that". According to both, the verse is giving but one reason to avoid the Philistine Route. Even though it was the shorter (and thus seemingly more logical route), Hashem chose to dismiss it because of the wars it would lead to.
- According to most of these commentators, the verse is saying that the route is close to Egypt, and either despite this fact, or because of this fact, it is rejected.
- Chizkuni32 raises a more metaphoric read of the verse, suggesting that the subject of "הוּא" is the Philistines themselves (not the route) who were relatives (קרובים) of the Egyptians and thus more likely to fight against the Israelites.33